Can't the same be said for any fast food? Or for any other low paying job?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sandra Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 2:24 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer subsidizing Walmart > > There was a book I read a year or two back, > > Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805063897/104-7241810-149835 > 4?v=glance&n=2 > 83155 > > The author decided to see how it worked to be one of > America's low wage workers. In it, she does a stint at > Walmart. One of the stories she tells is a woman who keeps > coming back to the women's wear department to see if a > collared shirt is on sale. The manage refuses to mark it > down, (it has some sort of defect) and the woman can't afford > to buy it at the price it is. > The quote I remember is "Alyssa looks crushed, and I tell > her, when Howard's out of sight, that there's something wrong > when you're not paid enough to buy a WalMart shirt," > > So the question really starts to become. Is Walmart making a profit > (3rd quarter result is "sales for the third quarter of > fiscal 2006 increased 10.1% to $75.4 billion from $68.5 > billion in the third quarter of fiscal 2005." > http://biz.yahoo.com/e/051202/wmt10-q.html, > and if so, are they doing it at the expense of their employees? > > > For a company that employees more than 10,000 workers in my > state, I have no > problem thinking that they need to provide some minimal > benefits to these > employees. Otherwise, when those employees become sick and > can't work, its > my state taxes that are paying for it. Why should I > subsidize Walmart? > > > Hidden Cost Of Wal-Mart Jobs > Use of Safety Net Programs by Wal-Mart Workers in California > > Arindrajit Dube > UC Berkeley Institute for Industrial Relations > > Ken Jacobs > UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education > > A Study for the UC Berkeley Labor Center > August 2, 2004 > > http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/walmart/2004/walmart%20study.html > > > Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 2:08 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: [signs of sanity] MD no longer subsidizing Walmart > > Unfortunately while I agree with you in principle, the problem is that > Walmart takes advantage of people like you who have ideals of > how gov't > should operate. They have absolutely no qualms about tromping on those > ideals as long as it makes them a profit. > > It's the same kind of deal as the pacifist argument. > Pacifists say, "nobody > should fight". so people who just want to take over say > "great! that means > you won't fight back when we tromp all over you!" > > Take a step back from the idealism and look at how they > actually operate. > Sure they offer jobs, but they're like strip miners in small > communities. > They come in, demand the local government subsidize their new store in > exchange for creating jobs and offering products, put all the local > businesses out of business, then when the local subsidies run > out they pick > up operations, fire all the people and move on to the next > local economy > leaving a dead town in their wake. And even if they don't > move on, the've > become the only game in town for jobs in many small > communities so people > don't have an option to go get another job with good benefits. > > Steps like this legislation are simply corrections to a > system suffering an > equilibrium problem. > > On 1/13/06, Tim Heald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well that's a positive at least. > > > > Still don't think it's right. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sandra Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:19 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer subsidizing Walmart > > > > > > Actually, the legislature didn't single them out. > > > > > > The bill states that any company with more than 10,000 > employees in > > > the state of MD shall spend at least 8% on health benefits > > > > > > It just so happens that all the companies with more than 10,000 > > > employees in MD do spend 8% or more on health benefits with the > > > exception of WalMart. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:42 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer subsidizing Walmart > > > > > > Also, how can this legislature single out a single > company for this? > > > > > > At least, shouldn't it be for every company? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:192353 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
